ToyKeeper wrote:
I don’t know what happened, but average poll results have been changing over time. I did a quick dirty heat map graph of the results at three different times… 06-10, 06-13, and 06-15. And I noticed some patterns:

People who voted early were more likely to prefer warmer temperatures, LH351D, and 219c.

People who voted later were wore likely to prefer cooler temperatures and XP-L HI.

People who voted in both polls, and used the same name on both, ranked Cree emitters higher, and ranked 4500K to 5000K tints higher, than those who voted in only one poll or didn’t use the same name on both.

I’m not sure if this is interesting to anyone except me, but below are the result snapshots plotted as heat maps.

Correlated votes (people who voted on both polls and used a consistent name) (excludes anons):

2018-06-10:
2018-06-13:
2018-06-15:

All votes (no correlation data included):

2018-06-10:
2018-06-13:
2018-06-15:

Based on what I see in the correlated vote maps, it looks like, if there can be two flavors, the flavors should probably be:

XP-L HI 3D

LH351D 4000K

Those are the two emitter bins which are closest to the hotspots in the data. And after those, the next most-popular spot appears to be 219c 5000K.
…
…….
…
Wow… I find it very interesting. Pretty amazing really.

It took me a minute to figure out what the “hotspots” were (the white squares) … but after that it all started making sense.

One question… what are the numbers at the bottom of each square??

Thanks for sharing this TK, it’s pretty neat! .

—

You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant

Hi Toy Keeper, thank you for your hard work and for sharing the collected data with us all. It does indeed looks like the majority from the poll would like to have the option of Two emitter choices for the FW3A. Personally I think the XP-L Hi at 5000k and Samsung LH351D at 4500K both appear to be the ideal choices going forward.

Based on what I see in the correlated vote maps, it looks like, if there can be two flavors, the flavors should probably be:

XP-L HI 3D
LH351D 4000K

Those are the two emitter bins which are closest to the hotspots in the data. And after those, the next most-popular spot appears to be 219c 5000K.

Since the 219c 5000K is available as a D4, one each of the other two as an FW3A pretty much covers the market. I know there were a few of us waiting for the FW3A and putting off a D4 purchase.Maybe D4 availability was a factor in the 219c receiving fewer votes.

That was exactly the reason I didn’t vote for 219C emitters. I’ve got two lights with them already (D4 and a Convoy triple with 4000K).

Wow. (To Toykeeper) If people voted based on reasons like this, instead of what they think looks good, doesn’t it kind of invalidate the whole poll?

The poll is based on preferences. I prefer floody lights and I also prefer ones that might not heat up as high as others (although I’m not sure if it’ll be a noticeable difference). Having two lights with 219C emitters has shaped my preferences and I’d prefer this light to be able to handle heat a bit better than my D4 and I’d also like it to illuminate the area directly in front of me to the best of its ability. I’d love to see it supplied with an even floodier led as well.

It’s an arbitrary number representing the “score” for each cell. But the score itself means nothing, aside from its weight compared to other cells.

zak.wilson wrote:

It looks to me like 5000K for the LH351D is a bit hotter on the heatmap than 4000K.

On the “all votes” maps, yes. But those don’t attempt to correlate the emitter type and color temperature, so all emitter types have higher scores at 5000K.

The more useful data is in the correlated maps. On those, LH351D has a slight bias toward 4000K. Perhaps I should run it again without votes where XP-L HI was ranked first, to get a better view… Here’s how that looks:

That was exactly the reason I didn’t vote for 219C emitters. I’ve got two lights with them already (D4 and a Convoy triple with 4000K).

Wow. (To Toykeeper) If people voted based on reasons like this, instead of what they think looks good, doesn’t it kind of invalidate the whole poll?

A good question. On the one hand, answering it properly might take one, or more, graduate dissertations.

On the other hand, I think there is a simple, pragmatic answer that applies to the present context, which is that the context of this poll is focused on emitter choice for the FW3A project. It isn’t a general poll about what emitter people thinks looks best, and it would be mistake to try and apply the results of this poll to a different or more general situation, at least not without interpretation and some added hypothesis testing.

Anecdotal information like PBWilson’s explanation for his reasoning can provide insight into interpreting poll results, and into designing subsequent polls. In this case, it reinforces the idea that at least some of the people voting in this poll are doing so in the context of their existing portfolio of flashlights.

My own considerations, as best I remember them now, a few days later:

I want at least 80+ CRI, and preferably 90+ because I already have enough lower CRI lights, most of which will probably be given away or receive emitter swaps. I don’t need another one.

Higher max output is good. Lower heat/ higher efficiency is good. Tighter beams are good in an 18650 tube-light triple.

The max output, high efficiency and throwier beam of the XP-L HI isn’t worth the added cost and the poor CRI to me.

The slightly throwier beam of the 219c isn’t worth the significantly lower max output and the lower efficiency wrt toe the LH319d.

My existing higher CRI lights already have Nichia (219c and 319at) emitters, and I have more such emitters for new builds or upgrades of existing lights.

Anyway, I really hope this doesn’t end up being available with only 70+ CRI XP-L HI. If that were the case, I’d really like a version with everything but the emitters, at a lower price.

This raises some questions about the XP-L HI for me:

Will a 3x XPL-L HI draw significantly more current off a single high-drain 18650 than would 1x of an efficient low Vf emitter like an SST-40 or Luxeon V?

Whatever the peak draws and outputs are for these two possibilities, thermals and battery discharge curves are going to place severe restrictions on duration of peak power, so what do things look like at other power levels? 20W (which is also going to heat up fast)? 10W?

Will a 3x XP-L HI deliver a significant throwier beam than 1x of something like an SST-40, Luxeon V or XP-L2 at similar power consumption levels?

How different will the beam profiles be?

These may be pretty basic questions, but the answers aren’t all that obvious (to me, anyway). Have they already been addressed in this thread.

A big part of what I’m wondering about is that, given that this light is a triple, are there some emitter options that take better advantage of that tripleness than others?

It’s pretty clear that hitting the 3000lm goal in a 1s 18650 light without triple emitters (or an as yet non-existant, compact, high-power boost driver), isn’t really possible. So, certainly, any emitter that ~hits that output goal takes advantage of the tripleness. The goal of regulation to ~ 1000lm doesn’t require a triple, though the lower Vf of a triple increaces the amount of time under which that regulation can be maintained.

There are other angles to be considered, but it kind of seams like taking advantage of trippleness isn’t necessarily a strong tie-breaker, at least not on its own.

It seems to me though that this project has a bias towards a bare, elegant, refinement laced with innovation. It isn’t an Emisar light (which is to take nothing away from any of the Emisar lights). The FW3A it isn’t pushing the limits of output nor compactness for an 18650 light (the D4 is), or compactness and throw (the D1). Which isn’t to say that it isn’t still trying to hit similar levels of output per-emitter, but it’s also seeks to provide regulated output at ~1000lm, a powerful but easy to use UI, a tail e-switch. For me, 90+ CRI is more refined and elegant than 70+ CRI. For me, using an emitter not yet seen in a large or limited-run flashlight is a bit of innovation.

In any case, it’s great to see this project moving forward. I’ve no interest in second guessing choices that have been made, I am interested in understanding them and how they might inform remaining choices for this project, and also how they might inform future projects I might want to undertake. I look forward to being able to buy a FW3A, light, even if it has XPL-HI that I want to replace

Very nice research project TK, though I’m yet to cast my votes, if the poll is still open ?

Seeing the way it is going in advance is helpful, for some tactical decisions, which I won’t do, that would be wrong.

Now, are the two preferred choices actually going to be available (remembering the XPL-HI might cost 20% more, on the total delivered cost of the whole thing if not absorbed by Lumintop), which some may not have appreciated, though it was clearly stated ?

Assuming there will be a choice of 2 (I hope).

Still, it’s fun, and anything would be better than XPG3s (seems to be recognised).

A shame proto2 has these. Any more feedback on it ?

Whilst we wait.

PS: why does an XPL-HI cost so much more than an XPL ? Perhaps the dies are cherry-picked from the best batches.

Samsung 5000k would be my vote. Seems like it would suit this host really well

Edit: Not a fan of the ranked choice voting. I wouldnt want any XPG in it, yet had to still include a vote for it. Also same with color temp. Wouldnt want anything higher than 5500k or lower than 4000k, yet had to vote for them…

Samsung 5000k would be my vote. Seems like it would suit this host really well

Edit: Not a fan of the ranked choice voting. I wouldnt want any XPG in it, yet had to still include a vote for it. Also same with color temp. Wouldnt want anything higher than 5500k or lower than 4000k, yet had to vote for them…

This voting means that if you vote for them to have last place, you’re voting that any other option would be better. That’s… how ranked choice works. Just because you had them on the list doesn’t mean you’re voting “for” them.

Not a fan of the ranked choice voting. I wouldnt want any XPG in it, yet had to still include a vote for it. Also same with color temp. Wouldnt want anything higher than 5500k or lower than 4000k, yet had to vote for them…

This voting means that if you vote for them to have last place, you’re voting that any other option would be better. That’s… how ranked choice works. Just because you had them on the list doesn’t mean you’re voting “for” them.

Exactly.

For example, consider this ballot:

1st choice: 219c, LH351D, XP-L HI

5th choice: XP-G2, XP-G3

This ballot says: Anything except XP-G. It votes “for” the first three, and votes “against” the last two.

If someone wants, they can further differentiate, stating which of the first three they like best or which of the last two they dislike most, but it’s not necessary. The ballot style allows a lot of flexibility in expressing one’s views, and the Condorcet vote-counting methods use all that data.

On a side note, Condorcet-based methods are not to be confused with IRV (instant runoff). The ranked-choice ballot looks pretty much the same, but IRV ignores most of the data and produces weird results. It gives the voter the illusion that the nuances of their views matter, but it’s a false illusion.